Those threads are based on sources which are at best questionable. Irrelevant.
This is where our viewpoints fundamentally diverge. We recognize Kashmir as disputed territory whereas you guys don't. A civilian population picking up arms under "false pretensions" is most certainly engaged in rebellion. However, if this were to happen in any proper territory of the state then it wouldn't be justifiable.
Agree about the Kashmir part, but destroying govt machinery is unjustified, whatever the excuse. Since Kashmir is an integral part of India, Kashmiris enjoy the same freedoms and rights as do the rest of the population (unlike those in Azad Kashmir or Palestine) and Indian constitution protects their rights as Indians. But when they pick up a gun, their rights are suspended, including the right to life!
There are still quite a few spiders in the cupboards who haven't been dug out yet and most likely never will (after all who will account for atrocities of the 90's and even recent ones).
What does that mean? Unknown unknowns? Lol, provide examples.
You are most welcome to do the above mentioned. It takes two to make a decent fight. Isn't this what a rebellion and counter insurgency all about?
Nope, COIN is to flush out insurgents. Rebellion is what you do in your teenage years against your parents' authority!
In my view, in this case the "excuse" is too hard to ignore as I have already explained in the beginning. Again if the "State" is so important to you that you become blinded of the sentiments of the people that constitute it then what good is it for the "State" to exist in such a fascist nature. According to your argument the war of 1857, the protests against colonial rule (both armed and unarmed) in the 1900s, the resistance movement of Subhas Chandra Bose are all unjustified. Then why don't we voluntarily surrender our territory to the British and apologize for our past violent and savage ways.
The Brits cunningly used flags to claim India!! (check out Eddie Izzard + Flags on youtube). On a serious note, they were not natives to the land and as such cannot claim it as theirs. Freedom struggle was justified since they imposed their own laws onto a population that had nothing to do with formulating those laws. With Kashmir, it is a part of the subcontinent with many commonalities including languages, culture, people etc. Now since the Kashmiri King signed the Instrument of accession (Pakistanis do not believe in that document and refuse to believe that it exists. Anyway not a topic for this thread) agreeing to accede to India, Kashmir is an integral part of India. Pakistan considers it as disputed territory. We consider that meddling in India's internal affairs.
Failure in the past to give due consideration to these has led to this point.
You are right to a certain extent on this one. I partially agree with you here. But still cannot/does not justify violence!
Fighting to impose an ideology and then slaughtering civilians in broad day light is in no way justified and hence are clear acts of terrorism. Could the same be shown about Kashmiri militants in a credible manner? Are Kashmiri militants fighting to impose their rule upon the population?
What do you think these terrorists are doing in Kashmir? Imposing their pervert wahabi ideology, suppressing
Sufism in Kashmir (majority of Kashmiri muslims follow sufism), ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri pundits (surprisingly they were the first voices calling for Kashmiri independence!), wanting to impose Sharia law etc.
AS to the killing of civilians, please do check neutral sources (neither Pakistani nor Indian)
PS: I would like to clarify my comments earlier which may have miffed some here. When I said "probably branded terrorists", it doesn't mean some of them couldn't have been militants (again I would refrain from calling them terrorists unless they have been shown to engage in deliberate attacks on civilians - terrorist is a much abused word in modern times). However, in due consideration of the past record of IA and in absence of independent verification, it is entirely possible some of those could be civilians.
A very wrong assumption. So you want to give benefit of doubt to the dead but not to those who are trying to bring about peace and normalcy?
Terrorists are terrorists. There are no two interpretations to it!
